Pet owners have relied on many different devices and techniques to provide identification information for their pets in the event that a pet becomes separated and/or lost from its owner. Two well-known types of identification commonly used by pet owners are conventional engraved/imprinted tags and microchips; however, several drawbacks are associated with each of these types of identification.
Conventional tags are generally worn dangling from the pet's collar and are sized to be small to prevent the tag from being cumbersome to the pet. Based on the size of the tag, pet owners are only able to fit a small amount of information, such as the name of the pet and the owner's address and/or telephone number, on the tag itself. Conventional tags are also prone to becoming degraded and worn down, resulting in loss of information and frequent replacement. Using a conventional tag may initially be low in cost; however, having to replace the tag multiple times due to degradation and/or owner information changing increases the overall cost associated with providing this form of identification for a pet.
A microchip is another common form of identification that is used by pet owners to provide a permanent form of pet identification in addition to a conventional tag. A microchip implant is an identifying integrated circuit which uses Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to provide a distinct identification number for the associated pet. It is highly recommended that microchip implantation be performed under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian professional due to the fact that the microchip is typically administered by subcutaneous injection on the dorsal midline of the pet. Microchips have become more widespread; however, they are still very limited in the amount of information that is provided regarding a lost pet. First, the microchip is only going to be useful if the pet is returned to an animal shelter or veterinarian's office where the microchip can be properly scanned. A common misconception about microchips is that the microchip allows for some sort of tracking mechanism, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS); however, this is not the case, as microchips only work when the chip is scanned by a scanner. Second, different manufacturers of microchips produce different types of microchips, which correspond to specific scanners. Unless a universal scanner is used, a microchip may not be picked up by a specific scanner, and the information provided by the microchip cannot be obtained. Third, microchips can move to different locations in the body once implanted, and since the microchip is not outwardly visible, it is difficult to ascertain whether a pet has been microchipped if the scanner is unable to locate the chip. Fourth, certain health risks and adverse reactions, while rare, can be associated with microchips in pets, given that they are subcutaneously implanted, such as cancerous growths at the site of injection.
In the field of pet identification, several advancements have been made to overcome the known deficiencies of conventional pet tags and microchips. For example, tags and collars containing battery powered displays for displaying and storing pet identification have been provided. Further, collars and tags including data communication means between the pet and the pet owner via radio frequency, GPS, and cellular network connectivity have also been provided to track and/or monitor a pet's movements, activity, and location. However, these advancements have created cumbersome collars which are heavy, complicated, and difficult to use, as well as still being limited in their abilities to track, monitor, and store pet information. Additionally, these collars are powered by either disposable batteries that can become costly to replace, or a charging component that requires the collar to be removed from the pet, creating the unnecessary hassle of detaching and reattaching the collar to the pet, leaving the pet vulnerable in the event of an emergency.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0221140 to Warren et al. discloses a pet collar having a digital pet information storage and retrieval device, comprising a Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drive containing pet/owner data and information, which is retrieved once the USB flash drive is connected to a computer. While the pet owner is able to store significantly more information on a USB flash drive than a conventional tag, the pet collar of Warren is not able to provide any tracking information to help locate a lost or stolen pet. Additionally, the pet collar of Warren requires a computer having a USB port in order to retrieve any data provided by the USB flash drive.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,970,090 to Sciarra discloses a pet tracking collar comprising a battery operated electrical ribbon cable extending within the collar, which is connected to various light sources, an on/off switch, and an antenna and a radio transmitter. The pet collar of Sciarra offers an improvement to the conventional tags and microchips in that it has tracking capabilities via a radio frequency receiver which picks up the signals emitted by the transmitter on the pet collar; however, the pet collar of Sciarra does not provide any means for obtaining information on the lost pet or pet owner, such as name and contact information. Furthermore, the tracking capability of Sciarra is limited by the receiver's range—if a pet has strayed beyond the receiver's range, the owner has to move around until the receiver is able to pick up the signal of the transmitter in order to successfully locate the pet. Additionally, the pet tracking collar of Sciarra relies on a disposable battery, which is known in the art to require frequent replacement, which can lead to greater expenses for the pet owner.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,543,134 to Lopez et al. discloses an interactive communication and tracking dog collar having imbedded features that allow voice commands and tracking over long distances, along with features that facilitate tracking and visualization. The collar of Lopez comprises a cellular connectivity electronics module having a cellular phone antenna and means to transmit and receive voice transmissions through a cellular network; a GPS tracking unit which provides backup to cellular triangulation to provide tracking over long distances; a power supply; and wiring to a plurality of speakers, light sources, and a display. Although the pet tracking collar of Lopez provides improvements to conventional tags and microchips, it still has several flaws in its design and functionality. Retrieving and storing pet/owner data information, as well as charging the power supply, is done through an electrical power input and USB data connection at the base of the electronics housing. This means that in order to access, store, or modify pet/owner data information, and/or charge the power source for the collar, the user will need to physically remove the collar from the pet, and also have the correctly sized USB data connection cable and access to a computer which has a USB port. This creates the unnecessary hassle of having to detach and reattach the collar from the pet every time information needs to be accessed or the collar's power source needs to be recharged, leaving the pet vulnerable in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, having to physically remove the collar to access data and recharge the power source can be dangerous for an individual who has found a lost pet, given the pet's temperament and situation.